A Look Ahead at TECH's C-USA Schedule

[maverick]

And yet so many of the P5 league teams are still afraid.

Or so we've been told...

[bulldogbacker2]

So some of you are scheduling experts

[Dawg06]

I agree with most of your points and we agree that we only have partial control of the situation. However, more than likely, both 1) poor performance and 2) poor scheduling are factors in the low RPI's for conference mates. Conference mates scheduling (and losing) to teams such as William Carey, Texas-Permian Basin, and Warner clearly indicate poor performance. I've looked at some of the other team's OOC schedules and some have a few good RPI games, but all of the ones I looked at could use improvement. However, that's easier said than done. The reality is that the P5 teams do their best to keep teams like us from getting at-large bids.

As you said, the only things we can control are our OOC schedule and our performance. However, our conference mates do need to improve scheduling along with performance. I hope Coach Konkol can put together a significantly better OOC schedule for us in the future. Maybe our conference mates can do the same.

It's clear to me just watching from the stands that C-USA does not have the caliber of teams from top to bottom that we faced in the WAC. However, the declining RPI is also because better teams moving on to a different conference were replaced by teams not as good.

I'm not sure what you want some of these other teams in our conference to change in terms of scheduling. In the end, they have to win games, but they aren't. C-USA is losing way too many games it shouldn't.

Better scheduling isn't going to help most of these C-USA teams, and if they were to schedule better, it really wouldn't help us.

Tech needs to schedule better. UAB, UTEP, Old Dominion, Middle Tennessee, WKU, and Charlotte need to play to their potential and win games they are capable of winning. North Texas and UTSA need new coaches yesterday. UTSA and Southern Miss each need a new facility. Marshall and Southern Miss? Terrible recent hires, and Southern Miss shouldn't cheat.

I honestly don't see how better scheduling by our conference mates would change anything about Tech's NCAA at-large outlook.

And these declining conference rankings are happening with essentially the same membership. 15 to 17 to 20 since we joined in the last major realignment, and that's using KenPom, not the RPI formula.

[PawDawg]

So some of you are scheduling experts

This is not nlulm or wbb so you are in above your head here. Move along.

[Dawg06]

Ask Florida State 2013 NIT, Georgia 2014 NIT, Texas A&M 2015 NIT. All of those games were played on the road against the "higher" seed and in front of smaller crowds than TECH would have. NIT tournament seeding is another area the P5 controls.

A team we finished 2 full games ahead of in the 2015 C-USA standings was given a No. 1 seed in the NIT and got all home games. Why was that? Because Jeff Jones scheduled significantly better than Mike White.

[HogDawg]

So some of you are scheduling experts

Ahem........yes. Believe it or not, most of us are working professionals that OVERCOME much tougher and more important business decisions each week than simply scheduling college boys basketball games. It ain't that hard.

[HoDo-Tech70]

I'm not sure what you want some of these other teams in our conference to change in terms of scheduling. In the end, they have to win games, but they aren't. C-USA is losing way too many games it shouldn't.

Better scheduling isn't going to help most of these C-USA teams, and if they were to schedule better, it really wouldn't help us.

Teams that have a higher caliber of opponents have higher RPI's. Only 25% of the RPI comes from a team's own wins/losses. 50% comes from their opponents wins/losses and the other 25% comes from the opponent's opponents win/losses. Strength of schedule counts for 75% of the RPI.

If you lose to the top 10 teams in the nation, your RPI will be higher than losing to teams 51 to 60. Therefore, the better teams you schedule, the higher your RPI. A team's own wins/losses only count 25% of RPI.

Conference teams can schedule for success by playing games against teams that will have higher RPI's. That's how the P5 conferences gets higher RPI's. C-USA teams don't seem to have figured that out. Of course, the P5 conferences may have a scheduling guru who assists them in determining the teams to schedule most likely to increase RPI.

Secondly, a more attractive OOC schedule may attract a more talented player to TECH or another conference school instead of a mid to lower P5 team. Having better players certainly helps performance.

Tech needs to schedule better. UAB, UTEP, Old Dominion, Middle Tennessee, WKU, and Charlotte need to play to their potential and win games they are capable of winning. North Texas and UTSA need new coaches yesterday. UTSA and Southern Miss each need a new facility. Marshall and Southern Miss? Terrible recent hires, and Southern Miss shouldn't cheat.

Agreed on all except Marshall. I suspect he may surprise his detractors.

I honestly don't see how better scheduling by our conference mates would change anything about Tech's NCAA at-large outlook.

See above. However, it will take better performance by our conference mates with their better schedule for any non-tournament winner to get an at-large bid. That's reality in the "new" C-USA.

And these declining conference rankings are happening with essentially the same membership. 15 to 17 to 20 since we joined in the last major realignment, and that's using KenPom, not the RPI formula.

I agree that KenPom is the "best". The initial large decline was because of change in membership. It has gradually gotten worse due to performance and also poor scheduling. See above again for RPI calculation.

You might say that RPI is not as important as it previously was in determining at-large bids and seeding. I agree. According to knowledgeable sources, the KenPom and several other systems are now being used by the committee.

It's not entirely about performance. The selection committee considers performance and schedule. A major factor is performance against top 50 and top 100 teams. We could have scheduled 13 OOC games against bottom 50 RPI teams and won them all, but we still wouldn't get an at-large bid.

[HoDo-Tech70]

A team we finished 2 full games ahead of in the 2015 C-USA standings was given a No. 1 seed in the NIT and got all home games. Why was that? Because Jeff Jones scheduled significantly better than Mike White.

ODU did have a better OOC schedule but I suspect there may have been another motive. If I remember correctly, that bracket was all non-P5 teams.

[HoDo-Tech70]

So some of you are scheduling experts

Ahem........yes. Believe it or not, most of us are working professionals that OVERCOME much tougher and more important business decisions each week than simply scheduling college boys basketball games. It ain't that hard.

Yes, HogDawg is right. I know a couple of 9th graders who know the basics of scheduling. Understanding the need for good scheduling is easy; it's getting that schedule that's difficult. Most power teams avoid playing teams like Tech as it could cost one of them an at-large bid.

I've posted this before - we should form an OOC alliance with 5 to 7 of the better teams from non-P5 conferences and play a pre-conference round robin with these teams. One or two could emerge with an at-large bid that would not have happened without the games. Another benefit of this arrangement would be a more attractive OOC home schedule. That could increase revenue (attendance) enough to offset the travel costs.

[Dawg06]

ODU did have a better OOC schedule but I suspect there may have been another motive. If I remember correctly, that bracket was all non-P5 teams.

Yes, ODU's bracket was devoid of cartel conference teams IIRC, but the four #1 seeds in the NIT were the "first four out" of the NCAA Tournament as determined by the NCAA Selection Committee. ODU became an automatic NIT #1 seed.

[HoDo-Tech70]

Yes, ODU's bracket was devoid of cartel conference teams IIRC, but the four #1 seeds in the NIT were the "first four out" of the NCAA Tournament as determined by the NCAA Selection Committee. ODU became an automatic NIT #1 seed.

I'm so convinced of a "cartel" conference conspiracy that I forgot they were #1 because they were "allegedly" among the first four out. Cartel conferences is very descriptive.

I still don't completely trust the selection and seeding process. For the most part, they do a good job, but in case of tie or close call, I believe the spot goes to a P5 school.

Also, what are the odds that 8 non-cartel schools would be in the same NIT bracket? I still find that suspicious.

[bulldogbacker2]

Move along...ha..i know a thing or 2 about business and scheduling..you tell me who in the top 75 is coming to ruston for 1 game..these teams usually want home games as well and tech equally want go to those types places...they need money games...now gulf coast was a good game...also most teams who cant fly sraight in and out want 2 games...who else they playing around here...uta is a good series so is ull...ulm got ut- chatty...let us see if this staff can do better

[bulldogbacker2]

I know the best way is to cut a money game but we all know that is not happening..

[bulldogbacker2]

Conference could help by getting better alliances and tv package

[Dawg06]

Teams that have a higher caliber of opponents have higher RPI's. Only 25% of the RPI comes from a team's own wins/losses. 50% comes from their opponents wins/losses and the other 25% comes from the opponent's opponents win/losses. Strength of schedule counts for 75% of the RPI.

If you lose to the top 10 teams in the nation, your RPI will be higher than losing to teams 51 to 60. Therefore, the better teams you schedule, the higher your RPI. A team's own wins/losses only count 25% of RPI.

Conference teams can schedule for success by playing games against teams that will have higher RPI's. That's how the P5 conferences gets higher RPI's. C-USA teams don't seem to have figured that out. Of course, the P5 conferences may have a scheduling guru who assists them in determining the teams to schedule most likely to increase RPI.

Secondly, a more attractive OOC schedule may attract a more talented player to TECH or another conference school instead of a mid to lower P5 team. Having better players certainly helps performance.

I understand the RPI formula, and the difference between losing to a Top 10 RPI team and a team with an RPI of 51-60 is so slim it means nothing.

Cartel conferences get higher RPIs because they WIN by rarely playing road games and in general have better talent.

You know I'm 100% for a more attractive OOC schedule. I've been banging this drum for a while. I refuse to attend our OOC games against all these juco opponents with which our schedule is littered.

Agreed on all except Marshall. I suspect he may surprise his detractors.

I hope D'Antoni proves me wrong. I guess the jury is still out on him. I just didn't like the hire.

See above. However, it will take better performance by our conference mates with their better schedule for any non-tournament winner to get an at-large bid. That's reality in the "new" C-USA.

I don't think that's a reality. With a good OOC schedule and performance and winning a regular season title, we can get an at-large bid without any help from our conference mates. We have to give ourselves a chance like ODU, UAB, UTEP, and Charlotte do. Last season ODU had an at-large bid had they been able to simply win a C-USA road game.

I agree that KenPom is the "best". The initial large decline was because of change in membership. It has gradually gotten worse due to performance and also poor scheduling. See above again for RPI calculation.

You might say that RPI is not as important as it previously was in determining at-large bids and seeding. I agree. According to knowledgeable sources, the KenPom and several other systems are now being used by the committee.

It's not entirely about performance. The selection committee considers performance and schedule. A major factor is performance against top 50 and top 100 teams. We could have scheduled 13 OOC games against bottom 50 RPI teams and won them all, but we still wouldn't get an at-large bid.

Again, I disagree it has to do with scheduling. Just look at teams like UTEP and ODU last season vs. this season. Last year they won games, but this year they are losing games they won last year.

As you can probably tell, I think RPI is crap. I think the NCAA Selection Committee realizes the same thing now. About a decade ago you remember when the MVC figured out how to game the RPI system. Everybody and the committee knows how it works now. RPI just doesn't carry the weight that it used to.

I agree with your assessment that a major factor is performance against Top 50 and Top 100 RPI teams. I think record vs. the RPI Top 50 seems to be the most important factor now, and I think we have to win at least two games of that caliber to get an NCAA at-large bid. The importance of the schedule is much more about giving you those opportunities for good wins than a simple SOS number.

I'm not sure what your point is about scheduling 13 Bottom 50 teams in OOC play. Nobody is advocating we do that.